Marketplace Removal

Permalink
Hi All (and c5, especially) --

I'm really unhappy with how you're handling the 5.7.4 release and marketplace removals.

It seems there are some breaking changes that have been made to 5.7.4 and the way that packages (don't) work. As such, the linter has been updated and has started proactively rejecting already-approved MP items. I got an email from Korvin to notify me that it's been removed.

Really?!?

5.7.4 isn't even out yet, you make a change to the way that it handles namespacing, announce it via email, and then start outright removing packages that don't conform to the new requirement?

jshannon
View Replies:
frz replied on at Permalink Reply
frz
Yes. Really.

To review:
1) We sent out an email to every marketplace developer last night letting everyone know that 5.7.4 release candidate has been out since last Friday and in that time we've learned that fixing some sloppy namespace handling in the core has brought some sloppy namespace use in add-ons/themes to our attention (as in it bricks the install).

2) We included links to documentation on how to fix it.

3) We built a new filter for the linter to catch them

4) We told you, in that email, that we were going to be running the linter on all listings over the next few days to find any add-ons or themes that were going to break.

5) We did so last night, and again this morning.

6) Korvin's been personally emailing developers that have issues making sure they're aware.

7) Andy's posting detailed responses in the forums for people who are still learning what to do.

8) We're pushing the official launch of 5.7.4 from this week to next to provide more time to what should amount to a line or two change for most folk.

So yes, you're right on the fact that because of the way the PRB and the linter work, if your add-on fails it does get temporarily disabled from the marketplace. You're missing hours of sales. That's a side effect of the way things are built and given the amount of time in the day we're just not going to build a whole new PRB system to handle this one off problem.

Perhaps your spam filter sent our email(s) to a folder where you didn't see them? That would make a lot of sense to me, because frankly short of hopping on a plane to hand deliver you a line of code I pay Korvin to fix myself I'm not really sure what we can do to communicate any more clearly. ;)
JohntheFish replied on at Permalink Reply
JohntheFish
I think making packages compliant with the autoloader isn't as easy for most developers as it is for Andrew and Korvin. There are enough threads here and in PRB reviews where developers are struggling to understand it.
jshannon replied on at Permalink Reply
jshannon
You're right. I should have mentioned that I received your email 18 hours before I received Korvin's (4pm & 10:15am, to be exact, so almost 3 "working hours"!).

Unfortunately, not all of us work full-time on c5.

Yeah. I guess in an ideal world I could have gotten to your email that night, or put aside my day job yesterday morning to make this "one or two line change". In fact, I'm not sure how accurate this is considering that the linter caught 33 files. Also, I need to test... some of us test things before putting them out. If this is such a trivial straightforward change for us to make, you could have Korvin could make it for all of us, cozy in your office -- not sure why a plane trip would be necessary!

Unfortunately, even if I could take time off to make that change, I left home yesterday afternoon on a biz trip, don't have my personal laptop, and don't get back until late Sunday. So, I'll be missing closer to a week of sales.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect (not so) trivial changes to be made in 4 working hours, especially when it's predicated on a voluntary change that you're pushing. Also, I don't even see how pulling our packages from the marketplace will help most users. If some customer has 5.7.3 installed with a broken package and you pull broken package from the MP, then that doesn't delete it from their hard drive, does it?
Phallanx replied on at Permalink Reply
Phallanx
@jshannon

I'm afraid you are on the receiving end of a *developer with OCD and a big stick.* that I describe here:
http://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/5-7-discussion/namespace-...

Form over function, again! See the following *Popular PHP projects overuse sub-namespaces*: for a reason
http://pornel.net/phpns
jshannon replied on at Permalink Reply
jshannon
Wow. Perfectly prescient post for the current circumstances.

Developer with a big stick and the love of using it.
Phallanx replied on at Permalink Reply
Phallanx
@jshannon

I don't think there is a love of using it. I'm sure it was discussed at length It is just that it is a requirement if it is not enforced by the language. Developing software can be like trying to herd cats.

Of course. The way around it would be to add another layer of indirection and move fully over to service oriented instead of just integrating user code into the skeleton framework. Then you wouldn't need to know anything about namespaces as an addon developer and addons wouldn't break sites.
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
I... Ehe.... Y.... mnnnnever mind.

No use.